Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a proximate result of Defendant s negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of LIPITOR (also known chemically as ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM).. Plaintiff s injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. LIPITOR has been implicated in a national epidemic of type diabetes in women taking LIPITOR. In August of, the FDA requested that Pfizer make labeling changes for Lipitor based upon the FDA s comprehensive review, including clinical trial data. The label change required Defendant to warn of the changes in blood sugar levels when taking LIPITOR. Defective design, inadequate warnings, and inadequate instructions led to serious patient complications, including type diabetes, as happened to Plaintiff.. Even though Defendant knew of the risks for several years, medical providers were unaware that the use of LIPITOR caused type diabetes in female patients. As a result, thousands of women taking LIPITOR were unaware that the drug was affecting their blood sugar levels. Even when Defendant finally began disclosing some of this information, it refused to protect patients. For example, when Defendant finally changed its label in February of, the warning it issued was extremely vague and in no direct terms did it warn that consumption of LIPITOR could lead to the development of type diabetes.. According to the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ), diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. People with diabetes can experience numerous serious and deadly complications, including heart disease and stroke, blindness, chronic kidney disease, and amputations. The risk for stroke is two to four times higher among people with diabetes. Adults with diabetes have heart disease death rates about two to four times higher than adults without diabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of new cases of blindness among adults ages -, and is also the leading cause of kidney failure.. The development of type diabetes is preventable with the proper monitoring of blood sugar levels. As such, the development of type diabetes in patients taking LIPITOR was also preventable and resulted directly from Defendant s refusal to conduct proper safety studies; follow --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: up alarming safety signals; suppression of information revealing life-threatening risks; wanton failure to provide adequate instructions; and willful misrepresentations concerning the nature and safety of its product. The conduct and product defects complained of herein were substantial factors in bringing about the Plaintiff s injuries, and a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Defendant s conduct and product defects. PARTIES. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was and is a citizen and resident of Orange County, California. Plaintiff was prescribed and ingested LIPITOR and suffered physical, including diabetes, and other injury as a result of LIPITOR and Defendant s conduct as alleged herein.. Defendant Pfizer, Inc. ( Defendant or Pfizer ) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in New York, New York.. The true names and capacities of those Defendants designated as DOES through 0, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing this Complaint and Plaintiff, therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show their true names or capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the DOE Defendants is, in some manner, responsible for the events and happenings herein set forth and proximately caused injury and damages to the Plaintiff as herein alleged. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant and this action pursuant to U.S.C. because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant.. The amount in controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant exceeds $,000, exclusive of interest and cost.. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant by: a. Virtue of Pfizer transacting business within California; b. Pfizer contracting to supply LIPITOR to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners; c. Pfizer, producing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, promoting, supplying, and --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: selling LIPITOR to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners with the reasonable expectation that LIPITOR would be used or consumed in California and are/were so used and consumed by patients including Plaintiff; and d. Pfizer s commission of a tortious act in California.. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to U.S.C. because Plaintiff resides in this district and because a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred within this district. Plaintiff, Aubrey Isom, purchased the Defendant s pharmaceutical drug, Lipitor, in Orange County, California, and ingested LIPITOR at her home in the city of Anaheim, Orange County, California. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. LIPITOR is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood. LIPITOR is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as statins.. Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Research, a division of Warner-Lambert Company, obtained approval from the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) to market LIPITOR on December,. Warner-Lambert entered into a co-marketing agreement with Pfizer to sell Lipitor, and thereafter those companies began distributing and selling Lipitor throughout the United States in. On June, 00, Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert and all rights to Lipitor.. Despite its knowledge of data indicating that LIPITOR use is causally related to the development of type diabetes and/or blood glucose levels diagnostic for type diabetes, Pfizer promoted and marketed LIPITOR as safe and effective for persons such as Plaintiff throughout the United States.. On August,, the Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products of the FDA requested that Defendant make labeling changes for Lipitor based upon the FDA s comprehensive review, including clinical trial data.. In February, Pfizer complied with the FDA s request and added the following language to its Warnings and Precautions Section: Increases in HbAc and fasting serum glucose --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: levels have been reported with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, including LIPITOR.. Prior to the February change, LIPITOR s label had never warned patients of any potential relation between changes in blood sugar levels and taking LIPITOR.. Despite the February label change, that warns in the most obtuse terms of a potential elevation of blood sugar, LIPITOR s label continues to fail to warn consumers or their physicians directly of the serious risk of developing type diabetes per se.. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew or should have known that the risks of LIPITOR included the severe and life-threatening complications of type diabetes.. At all times material hereto, Defendant, by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees, negligently, recklessly and/or carelessly marketed, distributed, and/or sold LIPITOR without adequate instructions or warnings of LIPITOR's serious side effects and unreasonably dangerous risks.. Plaintiff Aubrey Isom was prescribed LIPITOR by her physician in Orange County and used it as directed beginning in or around 0.. Plaintiff was prescribed LIPITOR to lower her levels of low-density lipoprotein ( LDL ) and as a preventive measure to decrease her risk of developing cardiovascular disease ( CVD ).. Plaintiff agreed to initiate LIPITOR treatment in an effort to reduce her risk of developing heart disease. She relied on claims made by Pfizer that LIPITOR was clinically proven to reduce her risk of developing heart disease.. Approximately one year after she began treatment with LIPITOR, Plaintiff was diagnosed with type diabetes in or around 0.. As a result, for the rest of her life, Plaintiff must undergo regular testing of her blood glucose levels, adhere to a restrictive diabetic diet, maintain an exercise regimen, and take medication to control her diabetes. Plaintiff is now also at a markedly increased risk of heart disease and blindness as well as further complications with her diabetes, including neuropathy and kidney disease as a result of her diabetes.. Had Defendant properly disclosed the risks associated with LIPITOR, Plaintiff would --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: have avoided the risk of diabetes by either not using LIPITOR at all or by closely monitoring her blood glucose levels to see if the drug was adversely affecting her metabolism.. As alleged herein, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant s negligent conduct, and the unreasonably dangerous and defective characteristics of the drug LIPITOR, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to, type diabetes. Plaintiff has incurred losses and damages including pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered economic loss, including loss of income and incurring significant expenses for medical care and treatment. Plaintiff will continue to incur such losses, damages, and expenses in the future.. Plaintiff did not discover, nor did she have any reason to discover her diabetes was a result of her use of LIPITOR and/or the wrongful conduct of Defendant, as set forth herein, until within two years of the filing of this complaint. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 0. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. At all times material hereto, Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care, and comply with the existing standards of care, in the design, development, manufacture, testing, inspection, packaging, promotion, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of LIPITOR to consumers.. Defendant breached its duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff, and failed to comply with existing standards of care, in that it negligently promoted, marketed, distributed, and labeled LIPITOR, and was otherwise negligent: a. In its design, development, research, manufacture, monitoring, testing, packaging, promotion, marketing, sale, and/or distribution of LIPITOR; b. In its failure to warn or instruct, and/or adequately warn users of LIPITOR, including Plaintiff herein, of LIPITOR s dangerous and defective characteristics; c. In its design, development, implementation, administration, supervision, and/or --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: monitoring of clinical trials for LIPITOR; d. In its promotion of LIPITOR in an overly aggressive, deceitful, and fraudulent manner, despite evidence as to the product s defective and dangerous characteristics due to its propensity to cause diabetes; e. In representing that LIPITOR was safe for its intended use when, in fact, the product was unsafe for its intended use; f. In failing to perform appropriate pre-market testing of LIPITOR; g. In failing to perform appropriate post-market surveillance of LIPITOR; h. In failing to adequately and properly test LIPITOR before and after placing it on the market; i. In failing to conduct sufficient testing on LIPITOR which, if properly performed, would have shown that LIPITOR had the serious side effect of causing type diabetes; j. In failing to adequately warn Plaintiff and her healthcare providers that the use of LIPITOR carried a risk of developing type diabetes and that patients blood glucose should be closely monitored; k. In failing to provide adequate post-marketing warnings or instructions after Defendant knew or should have known of the significant risk of diabetes associated with the use of LIPITOR; and l. In failing to adequately and timely inform Plaintiff and the healthcare industry of the risk of serious personal injury, namely type diabetes, from LIPITOR ingestion as described herein.. Plaintiff s injuries and damages alleged herein were and are the direct and proximate result of the Defendant s negligence.. Had the Defendant exercised ordinary care, and complied with the then existing standards of care, Plaintiff would not have been injured.. Defendant knew or should have known that consumers, such as Plaintiff herein, would foreseeably suffer injury as a result of Defendant s failure to exercise reasonable and --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: ordinary care.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s carelessness and negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to, type diabetes, as described with particularity, above. Plaintiff has endured pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, has suffered economic loss, including loss of income and incurring significant expenses for medical care and treatment. Plaintiff will continue to incur such expenses in the future. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, marketing, labeling and placing into the stream of commerce LIPITOR for sale to, and use by, members of the public.. At all times relevant to this action, the dangerous propensities of LIPITOR were known to Defendant or were reasonably and scientifically knowable to them, through appropriate research and testing by known methods, at the time they distributed, supplied, or sold their respective product, and not known to ordinary physicians who would be expected to prescribe LIPITOR for their patients. 0. The LIPITOR manufactured and distributed by Defendant reached Plaintiff without substantial change and was ingested as directed for its intended purposes.. Plaintiff could not have discovered any defect in LIPITOR through the exercise of care.. Defendant, as the manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, including LIPITOR, is held to the level of knowledge of an expert in the field.. Defendant marketed LIPITOR in multiple ways, including but not limited to direct-toconsumer advertisements, which were misleading in that Defendant overstated the safety and efficacy of LIPITOR and understated its risks.. The LIPITOR was defective and unreasonably dangerous in that the labeling was insufficient to adequately warn physicians of the risk of patients developing type diabetes.. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and inactions of the Defendant as set forth --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: above, Plaintiff was exposed to LIPITOR and suffered personal injuries, economic and non-economic damages including pain and suffering.. Defendant s actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint show that Defendant acted maliciously and/or intentionally disregarded Plaintiff s rights so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.. Defendant s conduct in continuing to market, sell and distribute LIPTOR after obtaining knowledge they were failing and not performing as represented and intended, showed complete indifference to or a conscious disregard for the safety of others justifying an award of additional damages for aggravating circumstances in such a sum which will serve to deter Defendant and others from similar conduct in the future. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant manufactured, compounded, packaged, distributed, recommended, merchandised, advertised, promoted, supplied, and sold LIPITOR, and prior to the time that it was prescribed to Plaintiff, Defendant impliedly warranted to Plaintiff that LIPITOR was of merchantable quality and safe and fit for the use for which it was intended. 0. Plaintiff, individually and through her prescribing physicians, reasonably relied upon the skill, superior knowledge, and judgment of Defendant.. Plaintiff was prescribed, purchased, and used LIPITOR for its intended purpose.. Due to Defendant s wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff could not have known about the nature of the risks and side effects associated with LIPITOR until after she had been injured by its use.. Contrary to Defendant s implied warranty for LIPITOR, LIPITOR was not of merchantable quality, and it was neither safe nor fit for its intended uses and purposes, as alleged herein.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s carelessness and negligence, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to, type --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: diabetes, as described with particularity, above. Plaintiff has endured pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, has suffered economic loss, including loss of income and incurring significant expenses for medical care and treatment. Plaintiff will continue to incur such expenses in the future. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. Defendant expressly warranted, through their direct-to-consumer marketing, label, and sales representatives, that LIPITOR was a safe and effective prescription medicine for the prevention of, and to help control, CVD. The safety and efficacy of LIPITOR constitute a material fact in connection with the marketing, promotion, and sale of LIPITOR.. LIPITOR manufactured and sold by Defendant did not conform to these express representations because it was not safe and effective for its intended use, and instead caused serious injury, in the form of the development of type diabetes, to consumers, including Plaintiff, when taken in recommended dosages.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of warranty, Plaintiff has suffered harm, damages, and economic loss, and will continue to suffer such harm, damages and economic loss in the future.. Defendant's actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint demonstrate malicious actions and/or intentional disregard of Plaintiff s rights so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION DECEIT BY CONCEALMENT IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE 0, 0. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. California Civil Code 0 provides that one who willfully deceives another with intent to induce her to alter her position to her injury or risk is liable for any damages that she thereby suffers.. California Civil Code provides, in part, that a deceit, within the meaning of --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0, is the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; the assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true; or the suppression of fact, by one who is found to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact.. Defendant, from the time that LIPITOR was first tested, studied, researched, evaluated, endorsed, manufactured, marketed and distributed, and up to the present, willfully deceived Plaintiff, Plaintiff s prescribing physicians and healthcare providers, the medical, scientific, pharmaceutical and healthcare communities, and the public in general, by suggesting to some or all of them untrue facts about their product that they did not believe to be true or had no reasonable ground for believing them to be true, and by concealing from them the true facts concerning LIPITOR, which the Defendant had a duty to disclose.. At the time LIPITOR was manufactured, distributed, and sold to Plaintiff, the Defendant was in a unique position of knowledge, which was not possessed by Plaintiff or Plaintiff s physicians, concerning the safety and effectiveness of LIPITOR, and thereby held a position of superiority over Plaintiff and Plaintiff s physicians.. Through its unique knowledge and expertise regarding the defective nature of LIPITOR, and through its marketing statements to physicians and patients in advertisements, promotional materials, labels and other communications as herein alleged, Defendant professed to Plaintiff s physicians that Pfizer was in possession of facts demonstrating that LIPITOR was safe and effective for its intended use and was not defective, when in fact it was not, and in fact Defendant possessed information they did not disclose that they had a duty to disclose to ensure such physicians were not misled.. Defendant knew or had no reasonable ground to believe the truth of their representations to Plaintiff s physicians. Such representations were made to induce the purchase of LIPITOR, and Plaintiff and Plaintiff s physicians relied upon those statements when purchasing and administering LIPITOR.. Defendant took unconscionable advantage of its dominant position of knowledge with regard to Plaintiff and Plaintiff s physicians and engaged in constructive fraud in their relationship. --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:. Plaintiff and Plaintiff s physicians reasonably relied on these misrepresentations and misleading facts.. Defendant intentionally concealed and suppressed the true facts concerning LIPITOR with the intent to defraud the Plaintiff, Plaintiff s prescribing physicians and healthcare providers, the medical, scientific, pharmaceutical and healthcare communities, and the public in general, in that Defendant knew that the physicians and healthcare providers would not have prescribed LIPITOR, and Plaintiff would not have used LIPITOR if Plaintiff had known the true facts concerning the dangers of Lipitor and its connection in causing diabetes. 0. As a result of the foregoing fraudulent and deceitful conduct by Defendant, and each of them, Plaintiff was caused to suffer the herein described injuries and damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendant had the duty and obligation to disclose to Plaintiff and to Plaintiff s physicians, the true facts concerning LIPITOR, that is, that LIPITOR was dangerous and defective, and likely to cause serious health consequences to users, including the injuries as described in this Complaint.. Defendant represented to Plaintiff, her prescribing physicians, and the healthcare industry that LIPITOR was a safe and effective product while fraudulently, intentionally, and/or negligently concealing material information, including adverse information, regarding the safety and effectiveness of LIPITOR.. As studies have shown, LIPITOR is not safe and is causally related to the development of type diabetes and/or blood glucose levels diagnostic for type diabetes.. Representations that LIPITOR is safe and effective are material as consumers and medical providers rely on these representations from drug manufacturers in prescribing, purchasing and using their products.. Defendant made representations regarding the safety and effectiveness of LIPITOR while --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: concurrently actively concealing adverse information when Defendant knew and/or showed a reckless disregard of its truth, that LIPITOR had defects, dangers, and characteristics that were other than what Defendant had represented to Plaintiff and the healthcare industry generally. Specifically, Defendant actively concealed from Plaintiff, her prescribing physicians, the health care industry, and the consuming public that: a. Since at least Defendant and/or its predecessors were in possession of data demonstrating that LIPITOR increases the risk of type diabetes and the risk of increased blood glucose to levels diagnostic for type diabetes; b. There had been insufficient studies by Defendant and/or its predecessors regarding the safety and efficacy of LIPITOR in women before and after its product launch; c. LIPITOR was not fully and adequately tested by Defendant and/or its predecessor for the risk of developing type diabetes; and d. Testing and studies by other entities as reported in the scientific literature has shown that the use of LIPITOR increases the risk of type diabetes.. The representations made by Pfizer that LIPITOR was a safe and effective product and/or active concealment alleged were perpetuated directly and/or indirectly by Defendant.. Defendant knew and/or showed a reckless disregard of its truth that these representations were false, and it made the representations with the intent or purpose of deceiving Plaintiff, her prescribing physicians, and the healthcare industry.. Defendant made these false representations with the intent or purpose that Plaintiff, her prescribing physicians, and the healthcare industry would rely on them, leading to the use of LIPITOR by Plaintiff as well as the general public. 0. At all times herein mentioned, neither Plaintiff nor her physicians were aware of the falsity of the statements being made by Defendant and believed them to be true. Had they been aware of said facts, her physicians would not have prescribed and Plaintiff would not have used LIPITOR.. Plaintiff relied on and/or was induced by Defendant s representations and/or active concealment and relied on the absence of safety information which Defendant did suppress, conceal, or fail to disclose in purchasing and using LIPITOR. --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:. Plaintiff, her physician and the healthcare industry, justifiably relied on Pfizer s representations that LIPITOR was safe and effective as it is reasonable that Plaintiff, her physician and the healthcare industry would rely on the statements of Pfizer regarding whether LIPITOR was safe because as the manufacturer of LIPITOR, they are held to the level of knowledge of an expert in the field.. Defendant had a post-sale duty to warn Plaintiff, her prescribing physicians, and the general public about the potential risks and complications associated with LIPITOR in a timely manner.. As a result of the concealment and/or suppression of the facts set forth above, Plaintiff ingested LIPITOR and suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to, type diabetes. Plaintiff has endured pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, has suffered economic loss, including loss of income and incurring significant expenses for medical care and treatment. Plaintiff will continue to incur such expenses in the future. Plaintiff s injuries and damages are permanent and will continue into the future. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. Defendant, in the course of its business profession, knowingly and negligently supplied Plaintiff s physicians with false information for guidance in the physicians' and the patient's decision to use and/or approve LIPITOR.. Defendant represented that LIPITOR was just as safe or safer and as effective as or more effective than other statin alternatives.. Defendant made these misrepresentations and actively concealed adverse information at a time when the Defendant knew, or should have known, that LIPITOR had defects, dangers, and characteristics that were other than what Defendant had represented to the health care industry generally.. Defendant negligently and/or intentionally misrepresented or omitted this information in their product labeling, promotions and advertisements and instead labeled, promoted and advertised their --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: product as safer as and more effective than other types of statin alternatives, and understated the risk of elevated blood sugar levels and diabetes associated with LIPITOR. 0. The aforementioned misrepresentations were untrue and misleading.. Defendant knew or should have known that these representations were false and made the representations with the intent that Plaintiff s prescribing physicians would rely on them, leading to the use of LIPITOR.. In willfully supplying the false information, Defendant negligently failed to exercise reasonable care in obtaining or communicating information to Plaintiff s physicians.. At the time of Defendant' fraudulent misrepresentations, Plaintiff s prescribing physicians were unaware of the falsity of the statements being made and believed them to be true. Plaintiff s prescribing physicians justifiably relied on and/or were induced by the misrepresentations and/or active concealment, and relied on the absence of safety information, which Defendant did suppress, conceal or failed to disclose, to Plaintiff s detriment.. The false information obtained and communicated by Defendant to Plaintiff s physicians was material and upon which Plaintiff and the medical community justifiably relied in good faith to their detriment.. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent misrepresentations of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered personal injuries, economic and non-economic damages, including pain and suffering.. Defendant's actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint demonstrate malicious actions and/or intentional disregard of Plaintiff s rights so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 0. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. Defendant has a statutory duty to refrain from unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the design, development, manufacture, promotion and sale of the defective leads. --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:. Had the Defendant not engaged in the deceptive conduct described herein, Plaintiff would not have purchased and/or paid for LIPITOR, and would not have incurred related medical costs and injury. 0. Defendant engaged in wrongful conduct while at the same time obtaining, under false pretenses, substantial sums of money from Plaintiff for the defective LIPITOR that would not have been paid had Defendant not engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct.. Plaintiff was injured by the cumulative and indivisible nature of Defendant s conduct. The cumulative effect of Defendant s conduct directed at patients, physicians and consumers was to create demand for and sell LIPITOR. Each aspect of Defendant s conduct combined to artificially create sales of LIPITOR.. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for all general, special and injunctive relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law. Under statutes enacted in California to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and false advertising, Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased LIPITOR pursuant to a consumer transaction for personal use and is, therefore, subject to protection under such legislation.. Under statutes enacted in California to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and false advertising, Defendant is the supplier, manufacturer, advertiser, and seller, who is subject to liability under such legislation for unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable consumer sales practices.. Defendant violated the statutes enacted in California to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and false advertising, by knowingly and falsely representing that the leads were fit to be used for the purpose for which they were intended, when in fact the leads were defective and dangerous, and by other acts alleged herein. These representations were made in uniform promotional materials.. The actions and omissions of Defendant alleged herein are uncured or incurable deceptive acts under the statutes enacted in California to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and false advertising.. Defendant had actual knowledge of the defective and dangerous condition of LIPITOR, --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: and failed to take any action to cure such defective and dangerous conditions.. Plaintiff and the medical community relied upon Defendant s misrepresentations and omissions in determining how to treat Plaintiff for prevention of CVD and to help lower her cholesterol levels, whether it be through diet and exercise, or the use of a statin medication, such as LIPITOR.. Defendant s deceptive, unconscionable or fraudulent representations and material omissions to patients, physicians and consumers, including Plaintiff, constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of Business and Professions Code 0.. By reason of the unlawful acts engaged in by Defendant, and as a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff has suffered ascertainable loss and damages. 0. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s violations of Business and Professions Code 0, Plaintiff has sustained economic losses and other damages and is entitled to statutory, compensatory, injunctive and declaratory relief in an amount to be proven at trial.. Plaintiff, pursuant to Business and Professions Code, seeks an order of this Court compelling the Defendant to provide restitution, and to disgorge the monies collected and profits realized by the Defendant, and each of them, as a result of their unfair business practices, and injunctive relief calling for the Defendant, and each of them, to forever cease and desist such unfair business practices in the future. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 00. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to California Business & Professions Code 00.. Business & Professions Code 00 provides that it is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association to dispose of property or perform services, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, through the use of untrue or misleading statements.. At all times herein alleged Defendant have committed acts of disseminating untrue and misleading statements as defined by Business & Professions Code 00 by engaging in the following --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: acts and practices with intent to induce members of the public to purchase and use Defendant's LIPITOR products: a. Representing that LIPITOR was safe, fit, and effective for human use, knowing that said representations were false, and concealing that LIPITOR had a serious propensity to cause injuries to users; b. Engaging in advertising programs designed to create the image, impression and belief by consumers and physicians that LIPITOR was safer than other regimens to treat CVD and high cholesterol, even though the Defendant knew this to be false, and even though the Defendant had no reasonable grounds to believe this to be true; c. Purposely downplaying and understating the health hazards and risks associated with LIPITOR; d. Issuing promotional literature and commercials deceiving potential users of LIPITOR by relaying positive information, including testimonials from satisfied users, and manipulating statistics to suggest widespread acceptability and safety, while downplaying the known adverse and serious health effects and concealing material relevant information regarding the safety and efficacy of LIPITOR; and e. Engaging in a practice undertaking unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent acts by refraining from taking any action that would provide prescribing physicians with appropriate information and protect patients who use LIPITOR, including Plaintiff, such as failing to engage in proper pharmacovigilance, signal detection and follow up, review of the literature, regulatory review, updating labels and timely and properly implementing label changes and conducting proper research, tests and studies to ensure the continued safety of LIPITOR, and taking appropriate action to disseminate to prescribing physicians and healthcare providers appropriate and permitted product information and labels concerning safety issues and safe prescribing practices for LIPITOR.. The foregoing practices constitute false and misleading advertising within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 00.. The acts of untrue and misleading statements by Defendant described herein above --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: present a continuing threat to members of the public in that the acts alleged herein are continuous and ongoing, and the public will continue to suffer the harm alleged herein.. As a result of their conduct described above, Defendant has been and will be unjustly enriched. Specifically, Defendant has been unjustly enriched by receipt of billions of dollars in illgotten gains from the sale and prescription of LIPITOR in California, sold in large part as a result of the acts and omissions described herein.. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code, Plaintiffs seeks an order of this Court compelling the Defendant to provide restitution and injunctive relief calling for Defendant to cease unfair business practices in the future.. Plaintiff seeks restitution of the monies collected by Defendant and other injunctive relief to cease such false and misleading advertising in the future. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL CODE 0. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, by the acts and misconduct alleged herein, violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code 0 et. seq. ("CLRA").. Plaintiff hereby seeks injunctive relief as appropriate against Defendant for ITS violations of Civil Code 0 et. seq. The CLRA applies to Defendant's actions and conduct described herein because it extends to transactions which are intended to result, or which have resulted, in the sale of goods to consumers.. Plaintiff was a "consumer" within the meaning of Civil Code l(d).. Defendant has violated, and continues to violate, the CLRA in representing that LIPITOR has characteristics and benefits which it does not have, in violation of Civil Code 0(a)().. At all times herein alleged Defendant have committed acts of disseminating untrue and misleading statements as defined by Civil Code 0, by engaging in the following acts and practices with intent to induce members of the public to purchase and use LIPITOR: --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: a. Representing that LIPITOR is safe, fit, and effective for human use, knowing that said representations were false, and concealing that LIPITOR had a serious propensity to cause injuries to users; b. Engaging in advertising programs designed to create the image, impression and belief by consumers and physicians that LIPITOR is safer than other regimens to treat CVD and high cholesterol, even though the Defendant knew this to be false, and even though the Defendant had no reasonable grounds to believe this to be true; c. Purposely downplaying and understating the health hazards and risks associated with LIPITOR; d. Issuing promotional literature and commercials deceiving potential users of LIPITOR by relaying positive information, including testimonials from satisfied users, and manipulating statistics to suggest widespread acceptability or safety, while downplaying the known adverse and serious health effects and concealing material relevant information regarding the safety and efficacy of LIPITOR; and e. Engaging in a practice undertaking unlawful, unfair or fraudulent acts by refraining from taking any action that would provide prescribing physicians with appropriate information and protect patients who use their products, including Plaintiff, such as failing to engage in proper pharmacovigilance, signal detection and follow up, review of the literature, regulatory review, updating labels and timely and properly implementing label changes and conducting proper research, tests and studies to ensure the continued safety of LIPITOR, and taking appropriate action to disseminate to prescribing physicians and healthcare providers appropriate and permitted product information and labels concerning safety issues and safe prescribing practices for LIPITOR.. The foregoing practices constitute false and misleading advertising and representations within the meaning of Civil Code 0. The acts of untrue and misleading statements by Defendant described herein present a continuing threat to members of the public and individual consumers in that the acts alleged herein are continuous and ongoing, and the public and individual consumers will continue to suffer harm as alleged herein. Unless Defendant is enjoined from continuing to engage in --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: these violations of the CLRA, Plaintiff and other consumers will continue to be harmed by the wrongful actions and conduct of Defendant.. Pursuant to California Civil Code 0, Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court for injunctive relief calling for Defendant to cease such deceptive business practices in the future. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs. 0. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew or should have known that LIPITOR was inherently dangerous with respect to the risk of type diabetes.. At all times material hereto, Defendant attempted to misrepresent and did knowingly misrepresent facts concerning the safety of LIPITOR.. Defendant s misrepresentations included knowingly withholding material information from the medical community and the public, including Plaintiff, concerning the safety of LIPITOR. The defendant s conduct was willful, wanton, and undertaken with a disregard for the Plaintiff s rights.. At all times material hereto, Defendant knew and recklessly disregarded the fact that LIPITOR causes the chronic illness type diabetes.. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant continued to market LIPITOR aggressively to consumers, including Plaintiff herein, without disclosing the aforesaid side effect.. Defendant knew of LIPITOR s lack of warnings regarding the risk of diabetes, but it intentionally concealed and/or recklessly failed to disclose that risk and continued to market, distribute, and sell LIPITOR without said warnings so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the health and safety of the public, including Plaintiff herein, in conscious and/or negligent disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by LIPITOR.. Defendant s intentional and/or reckless failure to disclose information deprived Plaintiff of necessary information to enable her to weigh the true risks of using LIPITOR against its benefits.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s willful, wanton, careless, reckless, conscious, and deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of its consumers, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries, including, but not limited to, type diabetes. Plaintiff --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: has endured pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, has suffered economic loss, including loss of income and incurring significant expenses for medical care and treatment. Plaintiff will continue to incur such expenses in the future. Plaintiff s injuries and damages are permanent and will continue into the future.. Defendant s aforesaid conduct was committed with knowing, conscious, careless, reckless, willful, wanton, and deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of consumers, including Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and deter it from similar conduct in the future. PRAYER FOR DAMAGES WHEREFORE, Plaintiff AUBREY ISOM prays for relief on the entire Complaint as follows: AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE:. General damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Medical and other special damages, past, present and future, according to proof at the time of trial;. Loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity, according to proof at the time of trial;. For medical monitoring according to proof;. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as followed by the laws of the state of California;. Costs of suit incurred herein; and. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN:. General damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Medical and other special damages, past, present and future, according to proof at the time of trial;. Loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity, according to proof at the time of trial;. For medical monitoring according to proof;. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as followed by the laws of the state of --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: California;. Punitive and exemplary damages;. Costs of suit incurred herein; and. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY:. General damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Medical and other special damages, past, present and future, according to proof at the time of trial;. Loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity, according to proof at the time of trial;. For medical monitoring according to proof;. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as followed by the laws of the state of California;. Costs of suit incurred herein; and. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY:. General damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Medical and other special damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity, according to proof at the time of trial;. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as followed by the laws of the State of California;. Costs of suit incurred herein; and. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECEIT BY CONCEALMENT IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE 0, :. General damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Medical and other special damages, past, present and future, according to proof at the time of trial; --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:. Loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity, according to proof at the time of trial;. For medical monitoring according to proof;. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as followed by the laws of the state of California;. Punitive and exemplary damages;. Costs of suit incurred herein; and. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT:. General damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Medical and other special damages, past, present and future, according to proof at the time of trial;. Loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity, according to proof at the time of trial;. For medical monitoring according to proof;. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as followed by the laws of the state of California;. Punitive and exemplary damages;. Costs of suit incurred herein; and. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION:. General damages according to proof at the time of trial;. Medical and other special damages, past, present and future, according to proof at the time of trial;. Loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity, according to proof at the time of trial;. For medical monitoring according to proof;. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as followed by the laws of the state of California;. Costs of suit incurred herein; and --
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jpr Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #:. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. AS TO THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 0, et seq.:. For injunctive relief, forever enjoining defendants from the acts of unfair competition and untrue and misleading business practices, and ordering defendants to pay restitution to Plaintiffs all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be in violation of Business and Professions Code 0, et seq., unlawful or fraudulent, or to constitute unfair competition or untrue or misleading advertising;. For disgorgement of Defendant s profits;. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;. For attorneys fees, according to proof;. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. AS TO THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 00, et seq.:. For injunctive relief, forever enjoining defendant from the acts of unfair competition and untrue and misleading business practices, and ordering defendant to pay restitution to Plaintiffs all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be in violation of Business and Professions Code 00, et seq., unlawful or fraudulent, or to constitute unfair competition or untrue or misleading advertising;. For disgorgement of Defendant s profits;. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;. For attorneys fees, according to proof;. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. AS TO THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE 0, et seq.:. For injunctive relief, forever enjoining defendant from the acts of unfair competition and untrue and misleading business practices, and ordering defendants to pay restitution to Plaintiffs all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be in violation of Civil Code --